Legal Opinion

Durst Mfg. Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided May 3, 1956No. C. D. 1778PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LawRence, Judge:'

Plaintiff imported a so-called ball cock assembly (minus certain two parts referred to, infra), which the collector of customs classified as an article in chief value of metal and imposed duty thereon at the rate of 22% per centum ad valorem pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 397 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1001, par. 397), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802.

It is claimed by the importer that the ball cock assembly in controversy should be classified as a machine, or part of a machine, in paragraph 372…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Simon, Buhler & Baumann (Inc.) v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1918
  2. United States v. Van Bourgondien Bros.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1928
  3. Bacharach Industrial Instrument Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1942
  4. H. J. Maybe & Sons Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Commercial Adolfo S. Pagan, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1962
  2. Keer v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958
  3. Camarge Trading Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  4. Central Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1957
  5. Coppersmith v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1958

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API